Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavior that totals are per currency and never summed across currencies, which is useful. It does not describe pagination or sorting, but these are not essential given the schema's limit parameter and the tool's straightforward nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose (listing transactions in a date range) and immediately provides the key behavioral caveat about currency totals. No redundant phrases.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be expected to explain the return format, but as a list tool the return is self-evident. It covers the main functionality, optional filters, and the currency behavior. It does not mention pagination, but the limit parameter in the schema addresses row counts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema descriptions cover all six parameters with clear explanations (e.g., ISO dates, default values, limit behavior). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists stored transactions in a date range with optional filters for account, category, or uncategorized. The verb 'list' distinguishes it from the sibling 'transactions_search', though the description does not explicitly call out this differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for listing transactions in a range with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like transactions_search or statement_summary. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.